I would think my point is obvious. I don't think this thread will change our negotiating strength one way or the other. You think it will, and back up your position with "support" from unnamed industry wide sources. Free and open discussion is not only a right it is also the best way to encourage participation and spot weakness in your representatives position. How about hub turn meetings? We know management monitors them. Should we stifle discussions there too?

On the whole I would rather accept some weakening of negotiating strength with a good document that the majority is still supporting at signing plus 2 years, than a strong negotiating position and a flawed document. The latter, by the way, is exactly what we had with the FDA LOA.

And we know there are no MEC lurkers here.

My own thoughts on Cap and Bank: It would work if you had a reasonable cap (BLG +18?) and applied any hours worked over the Cap into the pilot’s vacation bank. You would be able to use any hours added to your vacation bank anytime during the year (except peak) to plus your BLG up to min guarantee in any month you were able to drop trips. The max vacation buy back would remain the same.

Personally, I think we would be better off by simply discouraging overflying BLG instead of banning it. This would be counter to our current policy of encouraging overflying BLG. One simple solution; on Close/Conflict input day all BLGs would be reduced to Min BLG + 20 (where possible). Any “extra” hours removed will be put into the pilots general make up bank. This will result in a lot more hours in open time.

Either of these proposals will not prevent anyone from working hard for three months in order to take three months off . Both would make working more hours harder, which IMHO it should be.

 

I know what your overall point is/was, what I was getting with my question was that sometimes you seem to be fighting the ghosts of Christmas past when you object to something. The majority of us seem to be in agreement about the transgressions of the previous MC/MEC/NC, and while their actions can't be undone, they are no longer in their positions. Maybe it's just my read/misread, but sometimes it seems like are fighting them vs. focusing on current events. To be clear, I am not saying forget what they did(who could?), just that we shouldn't be so amped up about it that we don't put it in proper perspective. Like I said, maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but that's what I get out of comments saying that I'm insinuating that my opinion is an official policy from the ALPA, which is like shilling for the man for some on this board or bringing up an incendiary LOA(which you know I didn't support btw).

As for hub-turn or council meetings, sure management monitors them and no we shouldn't be quiet there, it should be quite the opposite imo. Like I replied to the OP, I think it's harder for them to quantify those thoughts negotiation-wise than web-boards though. You can't print out a hub-turn meeting and show it to the NC or offer it up as 'proof' (no matter how bogus) to a mediator that our NC doesn't truly represent us and that talks aren't at an impasse. Or as 'proof' that we will or will not entertain certain contract provisions that our NC has indicated otherwise to the company.

I didn't name any sources, because by and large, my experience here has been that people at this company don't like hearing about anybody else in the industry outside of UPS. The general feeling seems to be that what goes on/went on at carrier X, doesn't apply to us. However we already know that web-board postings and e-mails were used by United against ALPA and individual pilots. They were used against pilots by another union at Usair. NWA had a judge seize F/A computers during their CHAOS campaign. Airtran has been taken hostages left and right, and at least one of them was a vocal webboard guy. We've had friendly visits from LK here, and sometimes almost instant responses by management to things that are written here. No matter how unscientific the data is, I think it's clear that management at pretty much all airlines are interested in what we say on boards like this and it's not for our benefit. Btw, why do you think we received that little email warning from our union about web-board postings and why has ALPA engaged in spot closing of web boards at carriers in recent years?

In the contract arena, again look at UAL. When their management dropped the big turd in the punchbowl (1113C filing), they let the pilots negotiate with themselves a bit before making their offer which not surprisingly contained some of the concessionary ideas floated around on their webboard by their pilots. Personally I think PC was trying to do the same thing here with his little New Year's love letter, followed by a couple months of inaction and non-communication to see how we would react. On the opposite end of the spectrum is non-union SkyWest who have successfully used their company webboards to not only intimidate would-be union pilots, but to achieve ratification of 50+1% agreements with their pilots.

Of course we want a deal that the majority support vs. a 50+1% deal, but how exactly are we accomplishing that here? Management may react to this stuff, but ALPA never has nor will accept it as official negotiating direction input. That only comes from meetings and communications with the reps. Besides we may be vocal but, I think we're far from the majority around here.

As for the comparison with the FDA, I still fail to see it structurally. We the membership weren't enjoined in that process at all until a TA was on the table for ratification. We were only fighting ratification of a bad deal, with a backdrop of what to do with the reps who brought us it after the ratification fight was over. We are being asked for our input on the contract, so the only fight right now is what is the best way to accomplish that.

If you're looking for a potential negative comparison, I would think the Age 60 issue would be more appropriate since our input was asked for and ignored there. Personally, I think the lesson there was be careful who put in power and understand how to remove/replace them, but I can at least understand how what down there could affect one's mindset now.

 

And again the issue at hand is how does this thread hurt our strength?

I will tell you right now I will not vote yes on any contract that doesn't triple vacation.

How much have I just destroyed unity?

 

I hear what you're saying Bitme and I don't disagree completely, my gut just tells me that our natures will lead to those lines being drawn. Look at our discussions on the other thread about the idea of caps. That got to a level that even involved one of our reps giving his opinion.

 

I didn't say anything about it affecting unity LAG. IMO it hurts our NC's strength because it gives instruction to the company about what we want and where they think we are as a group relative to whatever the NC presents. We're already going against a machine that's much bigger, more singular of focus and better funded than us, why add to their natural advantages? Point taken about tripling vacation, but I think we both know that's not the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

 

I personally am not fond of any comments that begin with, "Don't touch....." That is a given and should remain unspoken. Talking about them puts them on the table. We shouldn't give anything away because FedEx is a money making company even in the worst trade slowdown in a long time. We work for a very strong company with a very good business plan.

Single issue voters also hurt us. The implication is if the single issue is left alone, we will settle.

I want my MEC to speak for me, not APC. I want the company to know I trust my MEC. Not the one that worked on the FDA LOA but this one. To work on negotiating points here and not thru them weakens their (our) bargaining position. It implies distrust of our system or our Reps.

What I do like to do is point out things that are terribly wrong and need to be fixed. Just add'em to the list and let the NC do the legwork in prioritizing them.

 

"I personally am not fond of any comments that begin with, "Don't touch....."

So you must really hate Francis..

YouTube - Stripes - Don't Call Me Francis

 

I would hate to hear that after JG presented a position the company said, "But the APC poll said you prefer X to Y."

 

I hate single issue voters, we should string them up. I don't want to tie the hands of the NC, we should string up anyone who tries. There now am I a team player?

This is not about whether or not I have it out for the this MEC (I don't worry any more about them anymore then they do about me) or the old MEC (sure glad they are gone). This is about whether all ideas about a contract have to be filtered on the way up before they are sanitized on the way back down. I think it is a pretty silly proposition that management could figure out what the position of ALPA or the membership is based on APC. I only need to point you at the FDA LOA Polls on APC vs the actual vote counts; enough said.

I still do not see how making suggestions here is any different than it would be if it was during a hub turn meeting. The negotiating commitees strength will be determined by our unity. One thing that can effect our unity is our openers. Our openers will be better with more inputs not fewer. This thread will facilitate more inputs to the block reps. This thread is good.

 

Expert in negotiation, are you?

What training have you gone thru?